| *** mhen_ is now known as mhen | 02:59 | |
| tkajinam | will you start the meeting ? | 13:02 |
|---|---|---|
| tkajinam | hmm seems damani is not here | 13:03 |
| damani[m] | yes | 13:04 |
| damani[m] | #startmeeting oslo | 13:05 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Wed Feb 26 13:05:08 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is damani[m]. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 13:05 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 13:05 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'oslo' | 13:05 |
| damani[m] | hberaud, tkajinam, JayF, gtema, meeting time | 13:05 |
| gtema | o/ | 13:05 |
| damani[m] | #topic oslo needs to define its leadership for the Flamingo/2025.2 release cycle | 13:06 |
| damani[m] | we need to define and do we want to continue with the DPL model? | 13:07 |
| hberaud[m] | o/ | 13:07 |
| tkajinam | damani[m], I voted for DPL model but it was moved to PTL model because we haven't heard from you | 13:08 |
| gtema | in Keystone we are going to evaluate switch to DPL, but in general it doesn't really look to me that the model does not do what it intended | 13:08 |
| tkajinam | so the decision may be pretty dependent on you unless someone else will take the PTL role | 13:08 |
| damani[m] | yes my bad | 13:08 |
| tkajinam | gtema, yeah | 13:09 |
| damani[m] | i will do an update with them | 13:09 |
| damani[m] | i can do it | 13:09 |
| damani[m] | i'm on pto until next thursday | 13:09 |
| damani[m] | but i will update and check today with gmann | 13:09 |
| tkajinam | current DPL is different from the past PTL model and more similar to "multiple PTLs" | 13:09 |
| damani[m] | yes | 13:10 |
| damani[m] | something else about that topic? | 13:11 |
| hberaud[m] | yes | 13:11 |
| damani[m] | hberaud, ok | 13:11 |
| hberaud[m] | FYI I'm currently mentoring kacperrh about release management, and we are currently studying together how the release liaison works etc... Kacper will give us help about release management in oslo. | 13:13 |
| damani[m] | hberaud, nice, sounds good | 13:13 |
| hberaud[m] | this do not impact the DPL/PTL decision but I think it is good to highlight the fact that we will get help on the release side of oslo | 13:14 |
| damani[m] | yes it's awesome | 13:14 |
| damani[m] | thanks a lot | 13:14 |
| hberaud[m] | you are welcome | 13:14 |
| damani[m] | and kacperrh welcome | 13:14 |
| hberaud[m] | but for now we are in the studying period | 13:15 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:15 |
| hberaud[m] | That's all for me concerning this topic | 13:15 |
| damani[m] | perfect | 13:16 |
| damani[m] | someone else want add something? | 13:16 |
| gouthamr | hey there, yes - so what will happen now? | 13:16 |
| damani[m] | gouthamr, what do you mean? | 13:16 |
| gouthamr | what’s the next course of action - I see you folks don’t mind either leadership model… so I’m confused what the proposal is | 13:17 |
| damani[m] | i will check with gmann a bit later today | 13:18 |
| gouthamr | check with gmann about? | 13:18 |
| tkajinam | gouthamr, my own preference is keeping DPL model. because OpenStack is no longer my main focus I really hope someones else on standby along with me | 13:18 |
| tkajinam | I think the point is that we haven't heard which damani[m] prefers here. PTL or DPL ? | 13:19 |
| damani[m] | DPL is good | 13:19 |
| tkajinam | If you prefer PTL then we can propose restoring the previous liaison model | 13:19 |
| hberaud[m] | +1 for the DPL model, but as I'm not no longer an oslo liaison I'll accept all the decisions takes by my teammates | 13:19 |
| tkajinam | as long as gmann is ok with continuing the tact sig | 13:20 |
| tkajinam | tact liaison, it might be | 13:20 |
| damani[m] | yes | 13:20 |
| gouthamr | great, I think I’ve seen you state that here multiple times :) but I feel like things were getting lost in translation… | 13:20 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:21 |
| tkajinam | now these are recorded in the meeting log so may not be lost :-) | 13:21 |
| gouthamr | damani[m]: sorry you’re having to respond when you’re away.. but, since this affects releases, could you please +1 the release patch that’s currently open? | 13:21 |
| tkajinam | I think gouthamr is talking about the ones I added to the agenda | 13:21 |
| hberaud[m] | so, DPL for everyone? | 13:21 |
| tkajinam | https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/epoxy-oslo-meeting-tracking#L47 | 13:21 |
| damani[m] | gouthamr, done for release | 13:22 |
| gtema | i would also prefer dpl | 13:22 |
| tkajinam | unless someone else will volunteer for PTL ... and as we have seen no nomination during the period I think nobody will. | 13:22 |
| hberaud[m] | we be good to decide the decision now once and for all | 13:23 |
| tkajinam | yup | 13:23 |
| damani[m] | yes like i said i'm also good for DPL model :) | 13:23 |
| hberaud[m] | DPL +1 | 13:23 |
| gouthamr | good stuff, can one of you then propose a governance patch? | 13:23 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:24 |
| gouthamr | or would you like help doing that? | 13:24 |
| tkajinam | I can propose it | 13:24 |
| hberaud[m] | thanks | 13:24 |
| hberaud[m] | tkajinam: I prefer to let you doing that as I won't volunteer for liaison against this series | 13:24 |
| gouthamr | thank you! | 13:25 |
| hberaud[m] | s/against/again/ | 13:25 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:26 |
| damani[m] | i can be liaison | 13:26 |
| hberaud[m] | good | 13:26 |
| gouthamr | thanks for the acknowledgment on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/942681 | 13:26 |
| damani[m] | and i would like if it's ok for you guys | 13:26 |
| gouthamr | tkajinam: was there any other release patch pending? | 13:26 |
| tkajinam | gouthamr, not at the moment | 13:27 |
| damani[m] | oslo.db | 13:27 |
| tkajinam | damani[m], one thing. Do you mind being a security liaison as well ? | 13:27 |
| tkajinam | it has been Ben Nemec but I think he is no longer around the community | 13:27 |
| damani[m] | i can do it yes | 13:27 |
| tkajinam | ok | 13:27 |
| tkajinam | thx | 13:27 |
| gouthamr | the problem here seems to be that damani[m] alone can trigger the “PTL Approved” vote; and that’s because tkajinam was not listed as the release liaison on the releases repo - this seems like an oversight we should fix as soon as the new DPL is in place | 13:28 |
| gouthamr | ^ (about why the release patch was stuck) | 13:28 |
| damani[m] | i can still be liasion on the release | 13:28 |
| tkajinam | ah, ok | 13:28 |
| tkajinam | I can probably propose that change as well | 13:28 |
| damani[m] | but i supposed we can be mutiple people no? | 13:28 |
| damani[m] | if like i'm on pto | 13:29 |
| gouthamr | yes, having multiple people is a good thing | 13:29 |
| hberaud[m] | AFAIK yes | 13:29 |
| damani[m] | ok perfect | 13:29 |
| gouthamr | but, there was a discrepancy between the release liaisons listed in the governance repo vs the releases repo | 13:29 |
| damani[m] | ah ok | 13:29 |
| gouthamr | https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/commit/976b3efc8135a7ba9bcac14f2490f2162027e675/data/release_liaisons.yaml#L112-L115 | 13:30 |
| damani[m] | but so i think the idea for the release is we are both liaisons tkajinam and I | 13:30 |
| gouthamr | tkajinam: thanks for proposing a fix to that, and if you add a depends-on to your governance/DPL patch, I’ll shepherd these patches in | 13:31 |
| gouthamr | damani[m]: +1 thank you | 13:31 |
| damani[m] | so to resume | 13:31 |
| damani[m] | we will do a patch in governace for update the DPL model right? | 13:32 |
| damani[m] | tkajinam, you will do it? | 13:32 |
| tkajinam | I've already proposed the patches | 13:32 |
| damani[m] | i can be the liaisons for the release, security and tc if that works | 13:32 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:32 |
| damani[m] | you too fast :) | 13:32 |
| damani[m] | checking now | 13:32 |
| tkajinam | damani[m], https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/942793/1/reference/projects.yaml | 13:32 |
| damani[m] | tkajinam, i need your secret :) | 13:33 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:33 |
| tkajinam | and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/942794 | 13:34 |
| gouthamr | good stuff, and thank you damani[m] tkajinam | 13:34 |
| tkajinam | damani[m], can you add your vote on that governance patch | 13:34 |
| tkajinam | ok you already did it | 13:34 |
| damani[m] | yes done | 13:34 |
| tkajinam | I think we are ok now and we'll wait for the update from TC | 13:34 |
| tkajinam | gouthamr, thanks for your help :-) | 13:35 |
| hberaud[m] | \o/ | 13:35 |
| damani[m] | and done for the release | 13:35 |
| damani[m] | patch | 13:35 |
| gouthamr | hberaud[m]: super stoked to hear about the intern you’re mentoring.. when they’re ready, we can edit the governance again and add them as a liaison wherever we would like | 13:35 |
| damani[m] | perfect | 13:35 |
| hberaud[m] | sure | 13:35 |
| gouthamr | tkajinam: ack, I’ll follow up on gerrit | 13:35 |
| damani[m] | so now i think we are done with that topic as said tkajinam and waiting the tc update | 13:35 |
| gouthamr | yes | 13:36 |
| gouthamr | please continue with your agenda :D /me goes back to sleep | 13:36 |
| hberaud[m] | good night | 13:36 |
| hberaud[m] | (part 2) | 13:37 |
| damani[m] | do you want i add you in the ping list of that meeting? | 13:37 |
| tkajinam | I know it's too early morning for you | 13:37 |
| damani[m] | gouthamr, thanks a lot and good night | 13:37 |
| tkajinam | damani[m], maybe not and we can ping him when needed | 13:37 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:37 |
| damani[m] | sounds good | 13:37 |
| tkajinam | when we have the "late slot" meeting, I guess | 13:37 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:38 |
| damani[m] | #topic threading backend for oslo.service | 13:38 |
| gouthamr | ++ I will attend atleast one of these meetings:) | 13:38 |
| damani[m] | so locally i have something but i have some tests issues, but i will even push with wip tag | 13:38 |
| damani[m] | and if i can try to fix the test sometime today | 13:38 |
| damani[m] | tkajinam, thanks a lot for the fix in olso.service and sorry for the forget | 13:39 |
| hberaud[m] | maybe the solution is to split your patch into isolated parts, no? | 13:39 |
| damani[m] | i will push something after the meeting | 13:39 |
| damani[m] | the implementation i have made as far | 13:40 |
| hberaud[m] | this way you will be less messed by tests failures, and the reviews will be more easy for us | 13:40 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:40 |
| damani[m] | i will check | 13:40 |
| damani[m] | after the meeting | 13:41 |
| tkajinam | so as we are very late at the cycle do you agree with pushing that work to Epoxy ? | 13:41 |
| hberaud[m] | by example one patch by migrated modules | 13:41 |
| tkajinam | sorry. Flamingo, I mean | 13:41 |
| tkajinam | given the fact that we already passed library freeze I don't think we can get it in for Epoxy really | 13:41 |
| tkajinam | yeah splitting the change to smaller steps would be helpful for reviewers | 13:42 |
| hberaud[m] | periodic_tasks, systemd, etc... | 13:42 |
| tkajinam | but at the same time I'd suggest submitting the full series so that we can get the full view | 13:42 |
| tkajinam | if you are unsure about the strategy then you can submit the current version and we can discuss how we split it | 13:42 |
| hberaud[m] | yeah we need all the series, but splitted | 13:43 |
| damani[m] | tkajinam, yes too late for epoxy and sorry for that | 13:43 |
| damani[m] | and yes about the splitting ok | 13:44 |
| damani[m] | ok i will reorganize my work locally and start to send patch | 13:46 |
| damani[m] | something else about that topic? | 13:46 |
| hberaud[m] | branches are not yet cut so in all the case if you submit it against master and if we do not merge it before the branch cut, your patches will land with flamingo | 13:47 |
| tkajinam | damani[m], you don't have to be blocked for long for that re-organization work | 13:47 |
| tkajinam | damani[m], we can discuss how we organize it after seeing the current plan | 13:47 |
| tkajinam | that's what I've been saying but I'll leave the decision to you | 13:48 |
| tkajinam | s/the current plan/the current implementation/ I mean | 13:48 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:48 |
| tkajinam | hberaud[m], yeah you are correct | 13:48 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:49 |
| damani[m] | something else? | 13:49 |
| tkajinam | there is one patch to deprecate eventlet thing which missed the release and I was wondering if we want to get that in with exception | 13:49 |
| tkajinam | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/taskflow/+/940884 | 13:49 |
| hberaud[m] | yes, it would be good to have it within Epoxy | 13:49 |
| tkajinam | but given the fact that we may not be able to remove eventlet support till 2026.1 (because the one in oslo.service is not deprecated in 2025.1) I think we don't have to really prioritize it | 13:49 |
| hberaud[m] | but taskflow is not an independent deliverable? | 13:50 |
| tkajinam | hberaud[m], no taskflow is not independent | 13:50 |
| hberaud[m] | hm https://github.com/openstack/releases/blob/master/deliverables/_independent/taskflow.yaml | 13:51 |
| tkajinam | tooz is independent but taskflow follows cycles | 13:51 |
| tkajinam | it was switched back from independent model some time ago afair | 13:51 |
| hberaud[m] | ah yes exact | 13:51 |
| hberaud[m] | https://github.com/openstack/releases/blob/master/deliverables/epoxy/taskflow.yaml | 13:51 |
| hberaud[m] | so as you prefer | 13:52 |
| hberaud[m] | I'd personaly advocate to prioritize it, but if you think that's not necessary then... | 13:52 |
| damani[m] | yes as you prefer | 13:52 |
| damani[m] | for me it can be good to have it soon as possible | 13:52 |
| damani[m] | but at the same i think that can wait | 13:53 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:53 |
| damani[m] | #topic open discussion | 13:53 |
| damani[m] | something else you would like to talk today? | 13:53 |
| tkajinam | it really depends on anyone who WILL work on getting an exception | 13:54 |
| hberaud[m] | I can do that | 13:54 |
| tkajinam | nothing else from me | 13:54 |
| hberaud[m] | no | 13:54 |
| tkajinam | ok then can damani[m] merge that change ? | 13:54 |
| tkajinam | I mean add your vote | 13:54 |
| hberaud[m] | I'll send an RFE on the mailing list | 13:54 |
| tkajinam | thx | 13:55 |
| damani[m] | done | 13:55 |
| damani[m] | for the vote | 13:55 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:55 |
| damani[m] | thanks a lot hberaud to take in the mail | 13:55 |
| damani[m] | ok something else? | 13:55 |
| tkajinam | I hope we don't detect any other regressions :-) | 13:56 |
| hberaud[m] | nothing on my end | 13:56 |
| tkajinam | again, nothing else from me. | 13:56 |
| damani[m] | hope the same | 13:56 |
| hberaud[m] | knock on the wood | 13:56 |
| damani[m] | ok | 13:56 |
| tkajinam | :-P | 13:56 |
| damani[m] | it seems we are done, it was a very good and productive meeting today | 13:57 |
| damani[m] | thanks a lot everyone | 13:57 |
| damani[m] | and see you soon | 13:57 |
| hberaud[m] | damani: thank you | 13:57 |
| damani[m] | #endmeeting | 13:57 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Wed Feb 26 13:57:44 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 13:57 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/oslo/2025/oslo.2025-02-26-13.05.html | 13:57 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/oslo/2025/oslo.2025-02-26-13.05.txt | 13:57 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/oslo/2025/oslo.2025-02-26-13.05.log.html | 13:57 |
| hberaud[m] | RFE requested https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/KLS3CRTV6U7EUF7I4IKZ5S7PCHRG4E3C/ | 14:06 |
| hberaud[m] | I'll work with Kacper on preparing the release patch once the taskflow patch will be merged | 14:10 |
| hberaud[m] | this way he will observe RFE mechanismes etc... | 14:10 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/taskflow master: Deprecate utility for eventlet https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/taskflow/+/940884 | 15:46 |
| JayF | tkajinam: sad to hear openstack won't be your main focus anymore; you've always done a lot of great work across the whole stack | 17:03 |
| tkajinam | JayF, :-) | 17:07 |
| tkajinam | The situation has been mostly same since I left the previous company, which you may know ;-) and I'll be around the community | 17:08 |
| tkajinam | but there is a local trend here, to look for alternative virtualization technologies, it's likely that I'd be more often pulled by local things. | 17:10 |
| JayF | I see that trend emerging. Everytime I've gone down any path like that, it's obvious in a hurry that other choices aren't ready yet :) | 17:16 |
| tkajinam | maybe I should have said it's a global trend | 17:17 |
| JayF | I think it's inherent to humanity to assume that there must be some magic "better" solution to hard problems | 17:18 |
| * JayF looks at chatgpt | 17:18 | |
| tkajinam | yeah | 17:19 |
| tkajinam | An annoying (but reasonable) thing is that most of users using "that" virtualization platform is not really ready to shift their mind to transform their platform to cloud, and what they are now looking for is just a management tool | 17:20 |
| tkajinam | there are still some gaps we have to fill to lift them | 17:21 |
| JayF | Often people conflate "easy" with "what is familiar" :) | 17:21 |
| tkajinam | yeah | 17:21 |
| gmann | damani[m]: I am ok for DPL model also , i thought you want to raise hand for PTL | 18:22 |
| gmann | I am +1 on governance change and also updated the leaderless project etherpad https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2025.2-leaderless | 18:22 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!